Tuesday at 07:57 PM1 day Big tankersBreaking DefenseUSAF should buy newly designed air refuelers to meet Chin...Although there’s a “temptation” to keep buying KC-46s, a plan to procure 75 more of the Boeing-made tankers should be an “upper limit” followed by a new, longer range tanker, the Hudson Institute’s TiFinish and fix the 46, interim big tanker 787 tanker while developing the BWB.Needs a cargo door but a looker, especially as a Guard tail.
12 hours ago12 hr 27 minutes ago, FourFans said:Yeah, how many would actually stay after getting that type rating?All of them for at least 10 years...
10 hours ago10 hr Author 1 hour ago, FourFans said:Yeah, how many would actually stay after getting that type rating?They would still go thru the full training program at airline X even with the type but it might make them more competitive to the hiring algorithm…The 787 tanker is a long shot but just for the interwebs. The A-330 MRTT NEO would be my recommendation (interim bigger wing tanker) but politics would likely be insurmountable.Still it brings up a good question, should the AF become more strategically oriented? That is focus on long range strike and effects, coming from a distance to mitigate the proliferation of short to mid range fires? I’m not saying the whole of the AF should be bombers and big fighters but part of the force design.
1 hour ago1 hr As I recall in the original KC-X proposal Boeing offered the 777F with a boom. It crushed in every possible category and the AF came back with, "its to big and won't fit in our existing hangers (707)". So then we had the debacle that was the 330 vs 767.Now AF wants the plane that won't fit in thier existing hangers.... sigh.
Create an account or sign in to comment